of each house, where the meetings pro- | fore thought proper for the accommodation hibited by this Bill should hereafter be proved to assemble, to forfeit 2001. the moderator of every such meeting to forfeit 100%. and each of the servants who should be proved to stand at the door, to forfeit 501. On the 22nd the Bill was read a third time and passed. of this description of persons, that the large and elegant suite of apartments at Carlisle House, in Soho-square, should be opened on a Sunday evening, where the refreshments of ices are provided to cool the hot, and tea, coffee, and chocolate, to warm the cold; for it is not pretended that any other refreshments are to be had there; but walking being the omne qua Debate in the Lords on the Bill for pre-exit in um of that place, the thing itself venting certain Abuses and Profanations of the Lord's-day, called Sunday.] May On the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill, 30. The Earl of Abingdon said:-My lords, the Bill that is now under the contemplation of this House, (the Sunday Bill I think it is called) is, in my mind's eye, so truly ridiculous, at the same time it appears so very serious; it partakes so much of tragicomedy; it so stalks in buskin, whilst it skips in sock, that really, I know not what part to take; whether to be merry or grave, whether to be silent or speak, and yet to play the mute upon such an occasion, were not only to play the fool with one's self, but to encourage the folly of others. For, my lords, taking a view of this Bill in its ridiculous light, what is the object? It is neither more nor less than this; to hinder people from walking and from talking on a Sunday night, not because walking and talking on a Sunday night is at present unlawful, but because walking and talking on a Sunday night must be made unlawful for the future; and this seems to be the whole object, scope, and tendency of the Bill. But now, my lords, let us enquire a little into the grounds and foundation of this Bill; and first as to the walking part of it, what is the case there? The case, as I-understand it to be, is this. Sunday being in this country, as in all other Christian countries, the day of otium cum dignitate, the day of rest, with the dignity that belongs to that rest; the day when people wash and clean themselves, and, as the saying is, put on their Sunday's best; and there being in this metropolis some, who having so washed and cleaned themselves, and put on their Sunday's best, are willing to enjoy this otium cum dignitate, not by walking al fresco on a Sunday evening, lest their Sunday's best be spoiled by the rain, but under cover; not all by the pale light of the moon," but by candle-light, when women and linen are said to look best; I say this being the case, it has been there has, euphonia gratiâ, obtained the rame of Promenade, and this I take to be the whole of the case with respect to the walking part of this Bill, the whole of the crime in the thing charged. But, my lords, if there be, as it appears by this Bill there is, such a degree of criminality in a promenade on a Sunday evening, it is wone derful to me that this Bill has not extended its clauses to the promenades of St. James's-park, and of Kensington-gardens; promenades, where indeed the refresh ment of ices, and of coffee, tea, and cho colate, may not be had, but where other re freshments are actually had, and especially on a Sunday evening; such as, for example, the refreshment of reposing one's self on the lap of nature, insomuch as to make visible that tell-tale line of the song, "Green was her gown upon the grass." And as to the sin of walking, there it is had in much greater excess than at Carlisle House, not to mention that there is less sin in a sin for being under cover, as at Carlisle House, than for being uncovered, as in St. James'spark and in Kensington-gardens. I must now wonder too, my lords, that this Bill has not gone a step farther, and taken notice of a late erection in Pall-Mall; an erection, for the outward impurities of which, the newspapers say, the erector (I think he calls himself Dr. Graham) has been already indicted, whilst the inward impurities remain untouched. But to this wonder I am aware of the arguments in answer. It will be said, that this erection is not intended for use on a Sunday; and, as Milton tells us in his Comus, "It is day-light only that makes sin," so in this Bill we find that it is Sunday only that makes sin; it is intended for the great, and not for the little; for the aristocracy, and not for the democracy: for us, my lords, to generate heirs for the nobility, who cannot do so for themselves; and for you, my lords, the bishops too, as a paper which I have in my hand will shew; the paper, my lords, is this: "Temple of Hymen. Intelligence extraordinary. A certain bishop has so completely exorcised the celestial beds, that the evil spirits are expected to depart in a few days. The rooms will be fumigated with brimstone, in order to the well receiving of the wouldbe Celestial. The Doctor has wisely opened his temple vis-à-vis to King's-place: that pure seminary is to serve as barracks for young recruits. Colonels Windsor, Matthews, and Adams, are to be made staff-officers, and Carrotty Kitty is to be drill-serjeant; they will learn their celestial exercise under the Doctor's own inspection, and be cleansed from all impurities. They will then be ready for the divine touch in his heavenly temple. N. B. A proper reinforcement of Irish chairmen are in pay to assist in case of emergencies." Such, my lords, are the operations of this Temple of Hymen, or, in other words, of this curious house of adultery: but in this there is no sin; for first, these operations are the operations of lying, in which there is no harm, and not of walking, in which there is; secondly, they are the performances of a week-day, and not of a Sunday; and thirdly, because we all well know, that what is a sin in the little, is not a sin in the great. As for instance, the minister being a great man, may by his councils murder our once fellow-subjects in America; he may rob and plunder the Etate of its treasure, he may tear up the constitution by the roots. "But Brutus is an honourable man," and Brutus will have a dead majority, and being dead, a corrupt majority in both Houses, to support these his honourable measures: whereas a little man, for walking under cover of Sunday night instead of the open air, is, because a little man, to be put by the same dead and corrupt majority under the rigour and the lash of a penal statute, making that a crime, which in itself is in Rocence. But now, my lords, a word or two for the talking part of this Bill, and what is the case here? Some men, pious men. I may say, for aught is shewn to the contrary, fonder of talking than they are of walking, and not choosing to go to bed on a Sunday night without digesting, by reason, what they had swallowed in the course of the day as a matter of faith, congregate themselves on a Sunday evening at a place, where paying six-pence a-piece for admission, they empty their heads of their metaphysics, and fill their bellies with the value of their six-pence in porter and cheese. An harmless supper this would seem, and not likely to be very offensive in the digestion! But here again, if the sin of talking, as of walking, consists in the day and not in the deed, what is the reason that this Bill does not extend itself to the Sunday-night clubs about St. James's: as for instance, to Brookes's, where indeed I am not a member, but where, my lords, as I am told, the members pay more than six-pence a piece for their supper; and as to talking, Lord, how they do talk! they talk bawdy, my lords, and sometimes heterodoxy, but not blasphemy; no, not so bad as that neither; but they talk what is worse than all, they talk politics. They abuse the minister; they say he has ruined the resources, and blasted the national honour of the country. And shall these be suffered to talk against the state, whilst those are not permitted even to talk upon the affairs of the church? No, no, says the Bill, be not mistaken. This is not our ne plus ultra; pass me into an Act, give me the principle of the Bill in a law; suffer me to put down the theologians this session, and I will take care of the politicians the next: you shall hear of no more Westminster or other committees; no more associations; no more petitions: the state shall be as much out of the reach of enquiry as the church. The late edict of Russia, forbidding the Russians to talk over the affairs of the state, shall become like this, an act of the English parliament, forbidding Englishmen to talk about the affairs of the church; which leads me, my lords, to take a view of this Bill in its serious light; and as in its ridiculous light I might say, risum tenatis amici? so in its serious light, I might add, "Quis talia fando, temperet à lacrymis?" For, my lords, shall a free body not possess a free mind? Shall not an Englishman be suffered to find his own way to heaven? Shall he not dispute, shall he not debate, shall he not doubt of, shall he not comment upon that which is to be, or not to be, the means of his eternal salvation? How is fire to be drawn from the flint but by collision? And how is truth to be known but by discussion? Shall he not measure his faith of the Trinity by the rule of his reason? And shall not a protester against the errors of the church of Rome, examine whether Protestantism or Popery is most congenial to the freedom of the state in which he lives? For these it seems are the theses against which the thunder of this Bill is levied, The Duke of Manchester quoted a nu ber of statutes enacted to prevent t profanation of the Lord's day; status which, if put in force, would have a swered every honest purpose of the prese Bill. His grace spoke very seriously its religious tendency, and seemed to this that however high the authority of t pulpit might be held, yet mankind wo never to be convinced of religious asse tions without the benefit of reply was a lowed, and that one neighbour had t liberty of conversing with another on t subject of that faith by which he was be saved. His grace farther observe that although he was an enemy to dissip tion and immorality, and although he nev had been at the Promenade, yet he st considered both the places of religious bate, and of Sunday walking and drinki tea, perfectly innocent. He therefo wished the Bill might be got rid of in decent a manner as possible, and that an ther on a more liberal plan might be fram to which he would give his most hear concurrence. But it is said, the Universities are at the decent, and so very repugnant to the di bottom of this Bill; it was brought into nity of the House, that he thought it u the House of Commons by one of the re-worthy a reply. He had intended, if a presentatives of one University, and se- thing serious was advanced, to answer conded by another representative of the but in the present case, he should lea other; and therefore," What learning the noble earl's arguments, if they cou dictates reason must obey." But, my be called so, to their own demerits; lords, this is no argument with me; for merits they had none. we all know, that to hold men in ignorance is sometimes the business of learning; and therefore, although I have the highest respect for the learning of the Universities, all is not gospel with me that comes from them; if it were, educated where I was in one of them, I ought to entertain principles very different from those I profess. With respect to one part of this Bill, however, I mean the walking part of it, possibly the Universities might have conceived it a fit object of regulation; for being devoted to the study of the dead languages, and not so conversant with the living, they might have supposed that the term Promenade' meant something more than it really does, that it was the mere covering only of original sin, and therefore ought to be suppressed; but as to the talking part of the Bill, in this they could not be mistaken. This came within the pale of their own knowledge; and here, my lords, " latet anguis in herba ;" here it is that one sees the cloven foot peeping from under the cassock. Under the pretence of profanation, enquiry is to be stopped, and truth to be suppressed. The unlearned are not to examine, lest they become learned. Truth lies in a well, and the clergy are to be the only buckets to supply us therewith. This, so far as it goes, is the principle of this Bill, a principle as subversive of religious, as it may be made instrumentally so of civil liberty; a principle as repugnant to the free constitution of this country as it is to the laws of our nature. And, therefore, as Mr. Locke tells us, "no man is bound to obey the legislature, but according to the trust put in it;" so, according to this just and fundamental principle of Mr. Locke, this Bill should not pass into a law. No positive law can suppress the laws of nature; nor is any act of parliament binding, which is to take from Englishmen the rights of Englishmen ; that is to say, the rights of the constitution. My lords, I shall give my hearty negative to the Bill, for the sake of its folly as well as its wickedness. The Bishop of Chester (Dr. Porteus) said, that the noble lord's speech was so in The Bishop of Chester said, that noble duke's speech was entitled to serious reply. He therefore inform their lordships, that he apprehended t noble duke to be mistaken in his id respecting the nature of the Bill: for was only meant to prevent that irrelig which our Protestant ancestors abhorr but the laws to effect which were fou inadequate to the purpose. He said, t instead of favouring popish persecution was levelled at popish customs; Fran and other countries of the same religi tolerated from the principles of that gion, plays, operas, and other pastimes the Lord's-day. But the Protestant ligion, founded on the Protestant c stitution and our clearest rights, did permit that profanation, and theref every law to serve that purpose must truly constitutional. The places of pub debate were supported not for the p pose of serving religion, but for the pe niary advantage of the proprietors; the people who spoke there were p a weekly stipend, for the purpose of dr ing others to the house. This he averred from the best information; and he had also the highest law-authorities, as well as information from the justices, that there was not now any act in force, to prevent that profanation of the Lord's day, which the present Bill meant to provide against. The question was then put on the second reading: Contents 29; Non-Contents 3. June 14. On the motion by the Bishop of St. David's, for going into a committee upon the Bill, The Earl of Abingdon said:-Having already delivered my sentiments upon the subject matter of this Bill, it is not my intention to trouble your lordships with any repetition of them; but I can by no means suffer this Bill to pass, without, in every stage of it, repeating my opposition to it. I now rise to object to its commitment; and this I do, not in consequence of the arguments that have been offered against the Bill, but of the want of argu- | ment that has been had in the support of La objecting to this Bill, upon the former occasion, I treated it as I thought it deserved; I treated it ludicrously, I treated it with gravity : I treated it ludi- | erously, for " ridicule" says my lord | Shaftesbury, "is the test of truth." I treated it with gravity, that it might meet he gravity of the House: but having led in that positive mode of attack, his negative kind of opposition may now ossibly prove more effectual. I say, my lords, having failed; for the everend prelate who has adopted this purious offspring, and means to legitimate by confounding the gravity of my arguments with the ridicule of them, and, by a arious kind of logic suited to the purpose, sot only triumphed in his conclusions of firing no answer either to the one or the ather, but had reason to triumph too in the majority which he obtained on the occasion. Indeed, knowing the high consequence of that reverend prelate, as well as the high pinion he entertains of himself, I expected nothing other than this from him: but the reverend prelate will give me leave to tell him, however he may boast of his victory within these walls, he will find his victory without these walls pretty much like the late victory of lord Cornwallis in America: victory that has ended in a retreat, and in the publication of a ridiculous proclamation (like this bill) which nobody minds, which nobody reads, and which every body holds in contempt. But, my lords, although it was not in my power to call up the reverend prelate to deliver his adopted child out of the hands either of ridicule or gravity, it gave me much pleasure to find, that the House was not deprived of hearing what the rev. prelate had to say in behalf of this adoption; for being called up by what fell from a noble duke, (of Manchester) he was then pleased to state what he had to offer in support of this Bill, and it is to the paucity and futility of the arguments that were then adduced by the rev. prelate himself, that I now rest my opposition to the farther proceeding upon this Bill. What those arguments were, their recency renders it unnecessary for me to state. But, why do I call them arguments? I will appeal to the House whether any thing that was said by the rev. prelate, had the shadow or colour of argument in it; or, if it had, whether it was not in direct opposition to the Bill. The rev. prelate said, that in Roman Catholic countries, plays, operas, and other pastimes were admitted on a Sunday; but in Protestant countries they were not. But for what reason are they not to be admitted in Protestant countries ? Does the rev. prelate know the wisdom and the policy of that measure? Does he not know, that the fundamental object of all government, is, or ought to be, that the people of that government should be rightly employed? How much better is it, therefore, that people should be suffered to come toge|ther of a Sunday evening, under the eye and policy of their government, to be amused by entertainments, in which there is no moral turpitude, than to be left to go a whoring after their own imaginations, and in the commission of acts, which are not only contra bonos mores, but which neither the eye, nor policy of any government, can remedy or prevent. Another thing the rev. prelate said, was, that he had the highest law authorities to assert, that there was no law in force to prevent that which this Act meant to provide against. Can there be a more decided argument against this Bill? Will any law authority say, will his Majesty's Solicitor General say, if these were disorderly meetings, if any thing occurred at them, which was contrary to the peace and good order of society, that there are not laws in being, and laws in abundance too, in every respect sufficient, not only to punish the offence, but to remedy the evil? What does the Bill itself say? It says, that the ecclesiastical courts have themselves power arguments had been advanced by his lord to punish these offences, and provides, that this jurisdiction should not be altered or abridged by the passing of this Bill. What, then, is the obvious purpose of this Bill? It is to make that a crime, which is at present neither malum prohibitum, nor malum in se, and to furnish punishments for offences, for which, if offences, it is admitted, punishments are already to be had. I have before taken notice of this Bill in its ridiculous and in its serious light; but there is another light in which I wish to view it, and that is, in its hypocritical light. When I see that rev. prelate, and almost the whole of that reverend bench, voting for putting tomohawks and scalping-knives into the hands of savages, to perpetrate murder in its horridest extreme; when I see those Protestant bishops, voting for crucifixes to perpetuate and establish Popery in America, in order that Popery may establish despotism in the crown; when I see them addressing his Majesty, and in their address not only asserting the war with America to be just and necessary, but, (as a species of peaceoffering, acceptable enough to the king of men, but from them, as ministers of the gospel, not quite so acceptable to the King of kings,) praising God for every victory that has a tendency to the blessings of peace, praising God for the shedding of human blood; for such is the object of their prayer; what must I think of this Bill? What must I think of it, but as a measure intended to throw dust in the eyes of the people; as calculated to draw off the public attention from those that are above, and place it on those that are below; to make the world believe, that the sin is not in them, but that the wickedness lieth in the people; that the shepherds would save their flock, but that their flock will not be saved; that they are busied in good works, in their watchfulness and care over the morality, the virtue, and religion of the state; when at the same time they are employed in upholding, with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their inight, the most abandoned administration that ever cursed the government of this or any other country, upon the face of God's earth. The Bishop of St. David's said, that, if his lordship had said any thing new, or had treated the subject with becoming gravity, he would have endeavoured to have given him an answer; but as no new ship, he should not take up the time of the House in answering them, especially as they were of too ludicrous a kind to deserve an answer from a member of that House. tee. The House then went into a Commit. a The Earl of Abingdon rose and said. Your lordships having thought fit to send this Bill to a committee, my next struggle must be, as I cannot do away its wicked ness, to lessen, if possible, the degree of its folly, and therefore, in order to this, 1 shall beg leave to trouble your lordship with one or two amendments. The firs is of the title-page; which being " A Bi for preventing certain abuses and profa nations on the Lord's Day, called Sun day;" I would wish, after the wor "profanations," to insert the words " well," and after the word Sunday, to ad the following words," as on the othe days of the week," and then the title wil run thus: "A Bill for preventing certain abuses and profanations, as well on the Lord's Day, called Sunday, as on the other days of the week." And to thi amendment, my lords, I am led by th preamble of the Bill itself; for it is ther said, that "debates having frequent been held on the evening of the Lord Day, concerning divers texts of Hol Scripture, by persons unlearned and competent to explain the same, to th corruption of good morals, and to th great encouragement of irreligion an profaneness ;" and therefore, my lords, i this be true, that debates held on th evening of the Lord's Day (as described are to the corruption of good morals, ani to the encouragement of irreligion an profaneness, debates (of the same de scription) held on any other evening must necessarily produce the same effects and if the same effects are produced of any other evening, it is equally incumber upon us to remedy those effects; and if be equally incumbent upon us to remedy those evils, it follows according to thi rules of sound reason, that my amendmen stands without objection. Possibly in deed, it may be said, knowing the power of the legislature to pass an Act for every day in the week, when the occasions shail call for it, and how easy a thing it is to multiply laws, that this law may prevent the other six from being enacted; but in answer to this, I am to inform your lordships (as I am instructed,) that these |